What part of 60 percent approval rating don’t they understand?
I’ll begin this post with another question: imagine that the constitution had been amended and that Bill Clinton was running in the Democratic primary, in place of Hillary? Would he get your vote? I realize that most of you (myself included) are favoring Edwards, Obama, or Kucinich right now, but wouldn’t it be hard to vote against Clinton after the job he did when he was in office? I know I would have to give this a lot of thought. And he certainly was popular when he was president: the last round of polls while he was in office consistenly showed him with approval ratings above 65%.
Poll after poll shows that Bill Clinton continues to be wildly popular and that Hillary’s connection to him is one of her greatest assets. Here’s some that Greg Sargent collected for TPM:
CNN poll:
If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination and goes on to win the general election in 2008, 60 percent of Americans believe her husband would have a positive effect on her administration, while 30 percent think it would be negative
Gallup poll:
Americans predict Clinton would be an asset as a presidential spouse. By a better than two-to-one margin, 70% vs. 28%, Americans believe he would be more helpful than harmful to his wife’s presidency.
As Norm Macdonald used to say (only of German people and David Hasselhoff), this confirms my theory that the Americans love Bill Clinton.
Why is it that official Washington simply cannot accept the simple fact that voters ike Bill Clinton and want him back in the White House? Here’s the always clueless (but, sadly, quite influential) David Broder:
If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder.
They already have pondered it and they like the idea. At what point does the reality of Bill Clinton’s immense popularity start sink in with these idiots?
It will sink in whenever the right-wing punditocracy embraces the concept of “reality”. In other words, never. It doesn’t suit their goals to embrace reality or inconvenient fact, so they continue to speak as if those facts were not facts at all.
I don’t know. I like Clinton, and virtually, if Hillary wins, you get Bill back as well.
My issue is this. The Clinton’s play the game of getting conservative votes all to well. Case in point, I feel they loose their focus when it comes to issues most of us care about.
Hillary is the only candidate who has not met with Gore to disscuss environmental policy. What does that tell you? Now if Hillary gets the nomination, I will fully support her. No way in hell will I support her in the primaries Though. She doesn’t need my vote. She’s already in bed with conservatives accross our state, insuring a Democratic victory.
What part of 60%? The same part that thinks there were WMDs.
Yeah, that’s about right.
I love it how the press calls Clinton divisive because 70% of the country loved and him and the other 30% disliked him him while Bush is called divisive because 70% hates him and the other 30% likes him.
How stupid is that? One guy is loved by most, the other hated by most. But the press calls them both divisive.
Hey, that is a very astute observation; hadn’t thought of it that way. It’s more doublespeak: dark is light, wrong is right, love is spite. Can you imagine what news would be like if there was no bias? You know, delivered in the deadpan Hal voice from “2001: A Space Odyssey” and totally objective?